Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (66 posts)
  1. jeff61b profile image95
    jeff61bposted 6 weeks ago

    We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.

    But Donald Trump wanted to incite the extremists. He chose the most inflammatory rhetoric he could. Long after the election was settled, he repeatedly lied about a “stolen election”, refused to concede or agree to a peaceful transition of power, and told his supporters they needed to march on the Capitol building to stop the certification of the election.

    So they did march, they did break into the Capitol, they did stop the certification and they proudly posted pictures of their accomplishments on social media.

    Trump didn't even criticize them on the day of the attack. He wanted this chaos to happen. There needs to be serious consequences for Donald Trump, or this sort of thing will definitely happen again.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Well, he has been impeached, and the Senate will address it when they are back in session which is not until Jan 19th. Trump will be gone, but if the impeachment is deemed legal (which many Constitutional scholars say it is not) Trump will have a Trail, and then the all-important vote. And punishment. ---- " Alan Dershowitz added that "the Constitution specifically says the president shall be removed from office upon impeachment." He said that because it does not say "the former president,"

      "In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office"

      He will have already have been living in Sunny Florida for a week as a private citizen.

      "There needs to be serious consequences for Donald Trump, or this sort of thing will definitely happen again."

      What would you suggest?

      1. jeff61b profile image95
        jeff61bposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        If the Senate convicts Trump it is a message to future presidents that they cannot engage in lies, corruption, incitement of violence and attempts to subvert the Constitution as Trump has done.

        It also prevents Trump from running for president again and makes him subject to criminal prosecution for his crimes.

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          You need to brush up on a bit of history.  The US Constitution is very specific about impeachment.  The purpose of an impeachment is to remove a president from office. NOT to punish him.  You can't remove someone from office who is already gone.  This is nothing more than political theater.

          Oh, and according to CNN and the NYT, the protest at the capital was preplanned.  It had NOTHING to do with the speech.  It is a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

          How can you hold a trial to remove a president that is already gone?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            As near as I can tell the purpose of this impeachment is to remove a possible future opponent from the political arena.  Nothing more - it is a political ploy to cement the power of one party.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I know it's crazy, but some people seem to think that a politician who fomented violence in support of a false conspiracy theory (the Big Lie) should never again hold office.

              Crazy, huh?

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Not crazy at all.  The will of the people must ALWAYS be controlled by those who know better.  So sayeth those who have the power to control, anyway.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You seem to be confused about why impeachment is included in the Constitution. Perhaps you should do some reading to remind yourself. I know it's hard to see what's right while still under the spell of a lying demagogue, but I hope you'll at least give it a try..

          2. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            yes, not sure why many are so determined to waste the time with a meaningless gesture. 

            "In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office"

          3. Valeant profile image85
            Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            No, but impeachment can ensure a bad politician can never hold office again.  It also ensures that the any pardon for offenses against the United States in the case of impeachment are negated.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              It sounds to me like you have not considered one thing, actually a very important thing. --- The Senate has the last word.

              1. Valeant profile image85
                Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Thank you, Captain Obvious.  But my stating reasons for impeachment had nothing to do with who runs the trial of impeachment.

            2. Readmikenow profile image97
              Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I suggest you read a bit more of the Constitution about the purpose of impeachment and then try reading what the founders wrote about it

              The Democrats have set a good precedent.  When Republicans gain power again, they can begin to impeach Democrat presidents who are out of office and violated their oath of office.  We could start with Bill Clinton, since impeaching a president more than once is now a precedent.  We could then focus on obama and the IRS scandal and others.  I'm sure Biden will do more than one impeachable thing during his time in office.  This might turn out to be a good thing for the future.

              1. Valeant profile image85
                Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yeah, because you're the only one who's ever read about impeachment.

                Clinton and Obama are a little different than Trump as they have both already served two terms and there is no threat of them ever taking public office again.  So go ahead and impeach them - it'll just look like pettiness to go after two former well-regarded presidents (Clinton - 66% approval ; Obama - 59% approval).

                1. Readmikenow profile image97
                  Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Glad you agree.  Maybe we could impeach Andrew Johnson again.  Why not?

                  1. Valeant profile image85
                    Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Him mounting a defense should be entertaining after you exhume him.  Let us know how that works out.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Very good point.

        3. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          President Donald Trump became the first U.S. president to be impeached by the House twice, but without action from the Senate, that might not prevent him from running for election again in four years.  Trump faced a single charge, “incitement of insurrection.” He is accused of encouraging a mob of loyalists to storm the Capitol following his speech at a pro-Trump rally on the National Mall.

          The Senate will next hold a trial and vote whether or not to convict. If Trump is acquitted he can run again for President. However, with the new majority Senate, it would be plausible he will not get an acquittal.

          1. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Sharlee, I highly doubt 2/3 of the Senate would vote to impeach and THAT is what is required.  As I've said before, this is nothing but political theater.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I very much agree this was just a new page out of the "Dems Playbook Of Cheap Ploys". Page number 423...  Titled   "Just Impeach When In Doubt"... LOL

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, when stripped of your own opinions
      (But Donald Trump wanted to incite the extremists.
      Long after the election was settled, he repeatedly lied about a “stolen election”
      He wanted this chaos to happen.)

      and your false statements

      (He chose the most inflammatory rhetoric he could
      Refused to concede or agree to a peaceful transition of power
      They did stop the certification
      Trump didn't even criticize them on the day of the attack.)

      there isn't anything left to convict him on.  As far as happening again; as long as we take a soft stance on rioting it will absolutely happen again.  Perhaps not by breaking into the capital but certainly by burning cities, killing cops and others, destroying businesses and other property as well as the rest of the violence of a riot.  This one was but the latest in a long string of riots that authorities have condoned and even encouraged; that it was on Capital grounds, and directly threatened the VIP's of our country, is the only real difference.  Interesting, don't you think, how threatening legislators rather than plain old citizens trying to make a living resulted in such a different response?

      1. jeff61b profile image95
        jeff61bposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Nobody has taken a soft stance on rioting that I've seen. In fact, rioters have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and were condemned for their violence.

        The difference between BLM protests and the Trump riots is that the Trump riots were based entirely on the lies that Trump himself told. The Trump rioters did exactly what they believed he wanted them to do. Had it not been for the incessant lies Trump told about a stolen election and his urging his supporters to stop the certification of the election, this tragedy would never have happened.

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Nobody has taken a soft stance on rioting that I've seen. In fact, rioters have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and were condemned for their violence."

          You may need to read the news a bit more.

          "Most charges against Portland protesters won’t be prosecuted, DA says"

          https://nypost.com/2020/08/12/most-char … ecuted-da/

          "Trump riots were based entirely on the lies that Trump himself told. The Trump rioters did exactly what they believed he wanted them to do. Had it not been for the incessant lies Trump told about a stolen election and his urging his supporters to stop the certification of the election"

          Now THIS is a lie.  NO proof.  Saw the speech and read the transcript.  NOTHING in there talks about violence. 

          "Investigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned"

          https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics … index.html

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Nobody has taken a soft stance on rioting that I've seen."

          Then you missed 3 months of nightly rioting in Portland.  You missed the "CHAZ" takeover of Seattle, with no response.  You missed city leaders marching with rioters, breaking down gates on private land as they did so.  Even that "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" is silly, with judges across the nation releasing rioters as soon as they enter the system and DA's declaring they will not prosecute no matter what.

          But you're right in that the Capital riot and those throughout the nation were based on different things.  The dozens (hundreds?) of riots across the country last year, burning cities, destroying millions in property (both private and public), destroying monuments, etc. were based on the false narrative that people with dark skin are targeted by police everywhere for death, while the riot at the capital, producing relatively little in damage (no fires, no destroyed vehicles, etc.) was about voter fraud that the establishment refuses to investigate, instead simply declaring there was none without ever looking.

          Of course it goes without saying that ALL of riots were also about idiots that think their personal vendetta/agenda is so important as to be above the law.  That believe that it is so important that the ends justify the means, whether ruined lives, simple destruction for the sake of destruction or death to innocent people.  And for those outside the capital riot, that free TV they stole doesn't hurt, either!

          1. profile image0
            Mentocioposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            What kind of procedure do you suggest that those who rioted, should have taken?

          2. profile image0
            Mentocioposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Do you prefer a Gandhi/M.L.K type riot perhaps?

            1. ScottSBateman profile image83
              ScottSBatemanposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              They don't understand the difference between legal protesting and illegal rioting.

              If anti-Trumpists protest peacefully, it is illegal. If Trumpists riot violently, it's freedom of expression.

              That's why they refuse to condemn the deadly Capitol Hill riot.

              They also don't understand that the people who were released without charges were arrested for non-violent misdemeanors.

              1. profile image0
                Mentocioposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Is there a reliable source that describes how 'legal protests" should be done?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Every city of any size has laws and guidelines on protests, so yes.

                  1. profile image0
                    Mentocioposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Who is the final arbiter of those 'guidelines'?

                2. ScottSBateman profile image83
                  ScottSBatemanposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely. Nothing stops you from standing on public property with a sign. If you are part of a group, you often have to get a permit.

                  Otherwise, here is one source for protest laws for each state:

                  https://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforci … state.html

                  1. profile image0
                    Mentocioposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Awesome link!

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Is it legal to burn a police station, and try to bar the doors so the officers could not get out?

                3. Readmikenow profile image97
                  Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "They don't understand the difference between legal protesting and illegal rioting."

                  I wonder if this includes the soon-to-be fraudulently elected vice president who created a fund to pay the bail of those who rioted in Minneapolis, Portland and other places.  Does she believe they were peaceful protests?

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                "If anti-Trumpists protest peacefully, it is illegal."

                Assuming you refer to the dozens of BLM "protests", not sure I've seen any.  Just riots and destruction, although there were most likely a few in Timbuktu or somewhere with a handful of actually peaceful protesters as the entire protest.

                "They also don't understand that the people who were released without charges were arrested for non-violent misdemeanors."

                You're right...as long as looting, monument destruction and burning buildings or cars is defined as "non-violent".

                1. ScottSBateman profile image83
                  ScottSBatemanposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Like I said, "They don't understand the difference between legal protesting and illegal rioting."

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    What makes a protest legal?

              3. Sharlee01 profile image86
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                "They don't understand the difference between legal protesting and illegal rioting."

                Are you under the impression the summer burning, looting, and killing was legal?

                I have not witnessed anyone here on this forum that has not condemned the riot on the Capitol.

                1. ScottSBateman profile image83
                  ScottSBatemanposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Of course not. But protests protected by the U.S. Constitution that don't involve burning and looting or any other laws are simply not illegal.

                  Killing? Are you talkiing about Kyle Rittenhouse, who murdered two BLM protesters?

                  Then you aren't reading all of the forum protestings. I asked Wilderness 3 times if he condemns the Capitol riot. He refused to answer all 3 times. Likewise 1 other person.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Facts can be very inconvenient...
                    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ … rest-acled

                    Your explanation makes pretty much the "majority" of the summer riots illegal.

          3. jeff61b profile image95
            jeff61bposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Either you have a bad memory about the BLM protests or you get all your news from right wing Facebook memes. There were hundreds of protests last summer and sadly some of them turned violent. The vast majority were peaceful but you will choose to forget that. The people who committed criminal acts of violence were arrested and prosecuted.

            The pro-Trump riots were planned ahead of time and were based on the bald-faced lies that Trump told. There were recounts, more recounts, and investigations in state after state with no evidence of voter fraud that could impact the election.

            All 50 states certified the election results and Trump continued his lies. The Electoral College met and made Biden the official President-Elect, and Trump continued to repeat his lies. He contacted officials in several states and tried to coerce them to nullify the election results. 

            Trump lied about "thousands of dead people who voted" when investigations showed there were exactly 2. He lied about the Post Office back-dating Biden mail-in ballots so they could be counted after the election. He lied about "massive dumps" of Biden votes by election officials and Trump ballots being dumped in a river. All the while he was telling his supporters that the Biden and Obama were guilty of treason. 

            None of his claims had any merit, yet long after they were disproved he continued working his supporters into a frenzy by claiming the election was stolen. Long after the Electoral College made it official, Trump still told his supporters to march on the Capitol to stop the certification of the election on January 6.

            Meanwhile, his gullible supporters were talking about starting a new Civil War on January 6 and Trump only increased his harsh rhetoric about stolen elections and treason. He is directly responsible for the violence that was planned and carried out at the Capitol.

  2. emge profile image78
    emgeposted 6 weeks ago

    Impeaching and trying to punish Trump is going to be like a double edge sword. The Democrats better be careful because all said and done Trump does have support whether people like it or not. Losing an election doesn't mean he has no support and the Democrats should not try and bait Trump. Trying to go ahead with all this impeachment process is definitely a witch hunt and it's not going to benefit America at all. When two sides harden their stand against each other, the next result is always violence.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Good point.

  3. Valeant profile image85
    Valeantposted 6 weeks ago

    Karl Rove on election fraud:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4SNf4jLRCk

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)